Vort

I would laugh, except I fear there might be some truth here. That would break my heart.

BYU needs to get a handle on this sort of thing yesterday.

As Saints, we strive to keep sacred things sacred, and sex is at or near the top of that list. We normally try to keep sex sacred by simply not talking about it openly. But this leads to a certain kind of naivete, a sort of opposing reaction to our sex- and filth-saturated world that so often portrays sex as "the nasty". It's one thing to not understand (or to refuse to understand) double entendres and degraded sex jokes; it's quite another to fail to see sex or sexual metaphor when it's used in holy writ. In the latter case, failing to understand the sexual nature of scripture, whether literal or metaphorical, can impede our grasp of what the scriptures mean. I have noticed quite a few examples of these, though I can't remember most of them. I haven't made a list of sexual mentions and metaphors in scripture; that might be a useful exercise. But consider that our most primal relationships are defined by the sexual act, either by engaging in the activity (in the case of a spouse) or by being the product of the activity (in the case of parents and children, brothers and sisters). We even call each other "brother" and "sister", implicitly invoking an intercourse-based relationship between us. As for our God, the Most High, the greatest Being of all, we call him Father—and this by instruction from our Savior and Redeemer (who is himself our elder Brother). The scriptures themselves mention sex openly, though often using euphemism (e.g. "Adam knew his wife...", where "to know" is a very old metaphor in many languages meaning "to have carnal knowledge of"). Perhaps just as often, it is built into the wording of certain verses, many of which we probably fail even to recognize as sexual metaphor. I remember reading Isaiah 51:1-2 (cf. 2 Nephi 8:1-2) many years ago and realizing it was probably a sexual metaphor: Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. I may be wrong about this verse, but when the metaphor idea occurred to me, the verses seemed to take on a more solid meaning. The earthy nature of the metaphor seemed to realize (i.e. to make real) the otherworldliness of what was being discussed. Now I am fully aware that many of the Saints of our day, and more especially the sisters, are sensitive to such things and find them distasteful. I have met a surprising number of women who are truly offended at the metaphoric reference to electrical parts as being "male" or "female". (I had a discussion about this with my wife a few days ago, the latest of a string of such discussions through the years. She assured me in all seriousness that she would very much prefer "innie part" and "outie part" to "female" and "male".) I have mentioned this particular issue to my sisters, my daughter, and a few family friends, and have found near-unanimous agreement among the womenfolk. Nevertheless, the raw earthiness that I perceive in the Isaiah verse above (for example) adds to the impact and personalization of the verse. I suspect there is a deep-seated idea, more common among the sisters, of the sexual act being not just private and sacred, but somehow a little...wrong. Or shameful. Or icky. Something like that. Whatever it is, it makes people (mostly women) uncomfortable when sexual metaphor is included in a place not normally associated with sex, such as electric fixtures or scripture. Anyway, my thesis statement is that if we are more willing to hear and consider such readings in scripture study, I think we'll get a much fuller picture of what the scriptures are addressing. I also realize that any time sex is invoked in a discussion, everything we write is likely to be viewed through a lens of double entendre. I have actually read back through and removed a couple of "no pun intended"s from this little essay exactly because I don't want to be perceived as jabbing my elbow in people's sides for some vulgar laughter. I mean this in perfect seriousness, no vulgarity or ribald humor intended.

I agree with @zil2. This is an example of reductio ad absurdum, a logical fallacy described by basically showing that the proposed argument is "If A, then B, but B is self-negating or otherwise absurd and impossible, so therefore Not A." In this case, A is "There is no Christ", and B is "we do not exist". In this case, A and B are connected by an intermediate step, C, which is "There is no God." So the line of thought is A→C→B, "There is no Christ, therefore there is no God, therefore we do not exist." Since we do in fact exist, it must therefore follow that God exists, and so therefore there is a Christ. Now, you may reject some premise or application of the logic. You may say, for example, that "no Christ" does not imply "no God", or that "no God" does not imply "we don't exist". But the logic is sound. The argument was apparently convincing to Jacob, who made it, and we may suppose to his hearers.

I would not put it in those terms; rather, I would say that the doctrine of the eternal nature of our own personal intelligence opens the door to resolving the otherwise insoluble dilemma of God our Creator being all-knowing and all-powerful, yet somehow still not responsible for our choices. The doctrine of premortal existence does not directly figure in to this, but does go hand-in-hand with eternal intelligence to suggest the faint outline of a process through which we, using our own (self-existent, uncreated, eternal) faculty of choice, could develop to our present state.

This gets to be largely definitional—and therefore not very interesting, IMO. Let me illustrate: God is "just", whatever that means. But God created us as flawed creatures, when he might have willed to do otherwise. God created our ability to choose. That ability leads some of us to hell for all eternity. God, being omniscient, knew this (of course) before he ever created us. God, being omnipotent, also might have created our decision-making ability differently from how he did. But God didn't. Therefore, everything we choose ultimately comes from God in his omniscience and omnipotence. In a literal sense, we were created to be damned, when God might have done otherwise had he chosen to. BUT—God is just. Okay, then. God is just. That means that God's perfect justice obviously means that God can intentionally and knowingly create ex nihilo a being who will ultimately suffer damnation for all eternity. And that's A-OK, because God is just. In this sense, the idea of justice has absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to our mortal idea of justice. It's a completely different thing. You might as well say that God is blurm, where blurm means "justice" or "loving" or "green" or "reptilian" or any other characteristic you care to put there. Because, you see, God's version of [insert characteristic here] isn't the same as our mortal version of that characteristic. That is to say, our linguistic tokens (words) don't actually mean anything when applied to God. Or rather, they mean something, but not anything we understand in this state. Therefore, saying that God is great, or God is good, or God is just, or God is loving, tells us absolutely nothing about the nature of God, because none of those words mean what we think they mean. This is why we reject such an approach. I do not doubt your sincerity, but perhaps with this explanation you can see why many don't find it convincing.

I think this idea is at the foundation of pretty much any robust religious idea or theology. If God is unjust, then we are mere puppets that do not even pull our own strings. At absolute best, unjust gods are like the Roman pantheon, and perhaps we can flatter a god by pleading to it and receive some blessing or other as a result. But what is eternal existence with a fundamentally unjust god? Most Christian traditions refer to such an arrangement as "hell".

Please remember that Latter-day Saints do not have a theology in the Catholic sense of the word. We believe in reading and studying the word of God to receive revelation through the Spirit. We do not believe that God manifests his will to his people through the careful linguistic, literary, and historical dissection of scripture and tradition. That doesn't stop us from engaging in such dissection, which occasionally may even prove useful. But God speaks from his heaven to us through the Holy Ghost and through living prophets, from the president of the Restored Church of Christ right down to the ministering brother and sister. I believe that formal theologies are not a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That said, here are my thoughts: Agency means the ability to choose whom you will represent. This is a separate question from how long you have existed and from whether you are eternal, backwards as well as forwards. That is, the answers to those questions don't actually depend on each other. But if you posit a case where the answers are inextricably linked, then of course things get a whole lot more interesting. Unsurprisingly, I believe that the questions are very closely linked, and as a result, I have a model in my mind about how these things sort of work together in explaining our origin and destiny. Please remember that my beliefs alone are worth what you paid to read them. But it's fun to think about. Rather than bury the lede by discussing relationships and therefores before getting to the meat of things, let me just blurt out that we as individuals are uncreated. Our parents created our bodies through sacred means ordained by God himself, and God created our spirit in some manner perhaps not far removed from that which our parents used (though of course such things are not publicly revealed). But even before our creation by God as spiritual sons and daughters, we existed in a form that the Prophet Joseph Smith referred to as "intelligences". Such wording is found in the Pearl of Great Price and in the Doctrine and Covenants. What our nature was as "intelligences" has long been debated, and to my knowledge no general revelation has been granted to clear up that particular issue. I take this to mean that our fundamental ability and will to choose Option A over Option B is innate in our very existence, and not created by anyone, even God. We are independent in that sphere, to act and choose as we will. I'm speaking in generalities because I don't understand what I'm talking about. But the general idea is: A computer programmer is 100% responsible for his creation. It's not the program's "fault" that it's faulty. If God "created" our decision-making capacity, then clearly God himself is responsible for our choices. This is inescapable, especially when we attribute to God characteristics such as omniscience, where before God ever created us, he knew what choices we would make, and such as omnipotence, where God might have willed to create us other than as he did (e.g. not sinful). To believe otherwise is to engage in nothing more than word games, which I find utterly useless and uninteresting. So our independent, uncreated existence as intelligence (or intelligences) puts the ultimate onus of our decisions squarely on our own shoulders. Of course, we can be deceived and misled. But God's plan for his children accounts for such deception and ultimately allows us to choose God, if that is our will, and in the end reach his throne. Our premortal life (or lives) is an unknown quantity. We do not understand what that life consisted of, its duration, its nature. Did we live in families, as we do here? I rather suspect we did, but I have no proof of that idea. Did we know all things? Clearly, we did not. Did we have access to God, and speak to him face to face? I think that idea is sort of implicit in the belief itself. But despite our knowing almost nothing about the nature of our premortal existence(s), the mere fact of its existence implies spiritual change and growth during that time. Therefore, what we experience today and how we choose to react to such experiences is inarguably influenced by our premortal actions and choices. We are an extension of what we were, and we will be an extension of what we are right now. Thus our agency that we exercise today is always and at every moment determined ("influenced" is probably a better word here) by our premortal actions, activities, and choices.

Multiple thumbs up. I hope you and Klaw enjoy this small but integral part of my early childhood.

Did they experiment with stapling their eyebrow in place, as in the picture?

Shame on you! Agreed. Syrup is disgusting. Cat, though...

By the way, I have no objection to "missionary standards" that include a short haircut and a requirement to shave, or even the idea that CES institutions might have a grooming code including short hair and clean-shaven status. For missionaries especially, I think such a grooming code might be a very good idea. But as a general rule, I think that telling men they need to shave is probably anachronistic and, in most cases, not overly helpful.

I can, and I do. There are many cultures, including ours, where a woman would never willingly shave her head bald. Covenant women might do so if asked to, only because they feel obligated by their covenants; but unless there is a pressing reason for them to do so, I think it would be unwise to require or even strongly suggest that they shave their heads. Likewise, some men might feel that shaving their beards strikes at the very foundation of their open display of masculinity, and might thereby hesitate to be clean-shaven. In the same way as a woman being asked to shave her head bald, I think that requiring or even suggesting that a man should be clean-shaven should generally be done only when there is a pressing reason to do so. I think it's plausibly arguable that in the counterculture attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s, it was reasonable to ask men holding certain positions (such as missionaries or men in leadership positions) to be clean-shaven. Please note that, at least to my knowledge, temple recommends have never been generally denied to men who wore beards or other facial hair, even in the 1960s and '70s. Today, I think that such counterculture elements would be far more likely to include things like gauged-out earlobes, facial or other tattoos, pink or green hair, and so forth. If such things are to be considered acceptable or at least not something the leadership counsels people about, I cannot imagine that wearing any sort of facial hair would be.

Come to my house on Sunday afternoon. Every other week, we eat a Sunday brunch of waffles and sausages. Good waffles, too. If you come on non-waffle Sunday, we have pancakes and bacon, so it's all good.

https://universe.byu.edu/2023/08/24/committee-members-give-an-update-on-the-new-hymnbook/?fbclid=IwAR1m8tNcvdvuD05Y5KIjGvtWpb9nBByA-0kDSTQ1q1xuqXG8ZBKtjHm1_iQ

Differentiation is not the answer. Integration is the answer. PS That's not arithmetic. That's calculus.

That one.

It's just my job, five days a week.

Hmmmm... A. Putting together a jigsaw puzzle B. Playing with Matchbox cars C. Sorting his collection of igneous rocks

I suspect this is not correct. I suppose that Moses got a lot of his early Genesis content from Enoch.

Reminds me of an anecdote from Surely You're Joking, Mister Feynman, which I may or may not get right. One summer while he was s a graduate student, Feynman decided to do some biology research. He found lots and lots of very interesting questions that were very obvious but that no one knew why things were like that. Preparing for his end-of-summer research report, he went to the library and asked for "a map of the cat", which he found out was actually called an "anatomical chart". Later, he made his presentation, which he started out by displaying the anatomical chart and defining some terms and features shown on the chart. A faculty member interrupted him to say, "Yes, we already know all this, just get on with the presentation." Feynman's response was, "No wonder I can catch up to you and do valid research in just one summer. You spend all your time memorizing anatomical charts when you could just go to the library and look them up." I mean, yes, that and having an IQ of 15,000.

I don't know what this means, biblically or otherwise. I don't want to know what it means.

It also specifically disallows same-sex romances. BYU is a part of the Church Education System.

Take it how you wish. Moses 1:29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

Reminds me of this: